Published in Beat Magazine, April 28, 2004

I’ve been watching a bit of news lately, and between watching highlights of Operation Iraqi Cockup and checking the footy scores, there are two teacup-sized storms raging in the media at the moment. One John Howard is accusing Mark Latham of running a Bill Clinton speech through the photocopier, while another John Howard swore at Georgie Parker (much to the envy of some viewers, and apparently the great pacemaker-shorting shock of others) on All Saints. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?

After the Sunday program on Channel 9 pointed out the parallels between a speech of Mark Latham's and then-President Bill Clinton’s 1997 US State Of The Union address, the Governmental Stepladder was produced to help our alleged statesman onto his high horse. Both speeches outlined targets for child literacy and internet skill, and goals for access to ongoing education. According to the Libs, Latham the parrot spent a bit long in the Oval Office bird cage, while the defence claims that children's author Mem Fox provided the inspiration.

One thing I need to mention is that I’m no fan of plagiarism. There are some comedians known for pilfering the material of others, and I believe there is a special level of Hell waiting just for them. I won’t be too graphic, but in my mind’s eye this level has a lot of sharp things, a lot of burny things, and a lot of movies Madonna has starred in. However, I’ve also seen, and been involved in, many instances where two comedians have come up with a remarkably similar gag (often in response to a news item or common situation). No need for any form of combat to settle this – each comic merely goes on their merry way. As this is not a situation involving a creative endeavour, however, there is only one question I wish to address.

The question is... who cares? What matters is whether or not he's genuine about the goals. If he meant the words, and has plans to achieve them, then I don't care if they came from a Clinton speech, a Mem Fox conversation, a Proclaimers song or an Ashton Kutcher movie. If they are nothing more than empty rhetoric, then it wouldn't help if they were written by the product of Immaculate Conception II, the little-known historical sequel where God impregnated William Shakespeare. Worry about how the meal tastes, and if it's nutritious, not whose cookbook it's from. Besides, originality is no guarantee of quality. If my surmising is correct, then the delightful phrase “non-core promise” is a Liberal Party Original – they should be about as proud of that as Mr and Mrs Milat are of their little boy Ivan.

Mega-Molehill Number 2 - apparently the Nothing-Better-To-Do Brigade has been flooding talkback radio because All Saints decided to feature the word "fuck". I saw the scene in question in a fortuitous piece of channel-flicking, but I'm not a regular watcher - shows like The Sopranos are more my style, where the word is dropped more often than Paris Hilton's knickers. By my thus limited understanding, the character played by the man doomed to be forever known as "John Howard... no, the other one" is meant to be hated. No mean feat, considering that in his other high profile television role, in Always Greener, he pretty much had "loveable Aussie battler" tattooed across his forehead. In the scene in question, John got in a bed-ridden Georgie's face, and in a discussion about staff ideas coldly slapped her with "It's not your fuckin' staff." It was one of the most effective tattoo removals I've ever seen... okay, I know I haven't actually seen any, just allow me the metaphor.

The facts are that 1) a lot of people swear, including some very unpleasant people, and 2) from my angle, the scene simply wouldn't have had nearly as much punch if "fuck"s weaker cousins, "bloody" and "goddamn", had been called in. Before I started comedy, I was perfectly happy to believe that swearing had little effect other than a brief shock. It has become obvious that it makes some jokes funnier, and makes other situations more dramatic. Rather than being a refuge for the inarticulate, I believe swearing should be part of every articulate person's arsenal, simply because there are times that no less "offensive" alternative will fit. Calling someone a "fool" or an "idiot" suggests one vibe, but neither word can match the venomous assessment of calling someone a "dickhead", which is then naturally trumped by "fuckwit". In terms of the character exchange, the dropping of the F-bomb at such close range on such a vulnerable target caused maximum collateral damage. It took many All Saints viewers by surprise, as it's not a weapon that they deploy regularly, which is also why it worked so well. If they can't handle the extra edge of drama that the word provides... stuff 'em.

See? That's what I'm talking about. Fuck 'em would've worked so much better.

I can't say I understand why these stories hit as hard as they did... after all, there are so many bigger things to worry about. We're about due for another publicity hound to announce that she's slept with David Beckham, so please keep this frequency clear for important announcements.